{"id":164155,"date":"2017-03-26T09:32:01","date_gmt":"2017-03-26T13:32:01","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=164155"},"modified":"2017-03-27T16:17:28","modified_gmt":"2017-03-27T20:17:28","slug":"hey-planned-parenthood-your-talking-points-are-wearing-thin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/hey-planned-parenthood-your-talking-points-are-wearing-thin\/","title":{"rendered":"Hey Planned Parenthood, Your talking points are wearing thin"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

We’ve all heard Planned Parenthood’s favorite talking points about why taxpayer funding of the abortion giant must continue. Whether it’s Cecile Richards repeating them before members of Congress or Planned Parenthood V.P. Dawn Laguens uttering\u00a0them again and again and again<\/a>\u00a0while refusing to answer any meaningful questions on TV, it’s clear that the abortion business wants you to buy what it’s selling.<\/p>\n

A recent\u00a0op-ed<\/a> by president and CEO of Planned Parenthood California Central Coast Jenna Tosh predictably relies on several of these talking points, while failing to even remotely demonstrate why taxpayers should be forced to continue pouring money into an organization that actively\u00a0sells abortions and otherwise can’t seem to avoid getting caught up in scandal after scandal.<\/p>\n

The gist of Tosh’s op-ed is actually quite simple. In her own words, “[y]ou cannot simply replace Planned Parenthood\u2019s critical role[.]”<\/p>\n

P.R. Stunts Don’t Distract from Unethical Actions or Decreasing Services<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tosh exalts Planned Parenthood as a provider of primary, preventative care, citing cancer screenings and STD testing. No doubt, Tosh is aware that these are not the aspects of Planned Parenthood that anyone has a problem with. Focusing on the positive aspects of an organization does not in any way resolve its problematic aspects \u2013\u00a0instead, it’s a deceptive deflection from the real debate. Any business with a decent\u00a0public relations staff\u00a0could distract from its unethical actions by constantly talking about how much good it does.<\/p>\n

Beyond that, Planned Parenthood performs less than two percent<\/a>\u00a0of all women\u2019s cancer screenings in the United States (while being responsible for nearly 35\u00a0percent<\/a> of America\u2019s abortions). So in addition to being an obvious P.R. stunt, harping about its decreasing cancer screenings<\/a> is quite blatantly misleading.<\/p>\n

Taxpayer Funding Isn’t a Permanent Gift<\/strong><\/p>\n

After talking about the abortion giant’s less controversial services, Tosh proceeds to attempt to scare readers into feeling that they need Planned Parenthood for said services:<\/p>\n

If Planned Parenthood were unable to receive reimbursements for our patients\u2019 care, access would be reduced. The people most impacted would be those who already face the most barriers to care \u2014 people with low incomes, people of color and people living in rural areas.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This\u00a0is worth considering, but\u00a0surely Tosh is aware that\u00a0the “reduced access”\u00a0argument could be made against\u00a0any removal of funding from\u00a0practically any health care provider for practically any reason.\u00a0Is she implying that once a health care organization starts receiving taxpayer funds, there’s no going back, no matter how poor its\u00a0care or how unethical its\u00a0behavior, due to the challenges presented by redirecting funds? The fact that making improvements to health care funding would present challenges does not in any way negate arguments in favor of the improvements.\u00a0All changes present challenges.<\/p>\n

Calling the Kettle Black<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ironically, in the same article, Tosh makes a point to praise the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which resulted in some patients having to change insurance providers and in some cases, as a result, health care providers. Whether or not one supports the ACA, the point is this: Tosh’s argument\u00a0that making changes is akin to\u00a0“reducing access”\u00a0fails to prove her point and\u00a0could also be used against the very same piece of legislation she is defending.<\/p>\n

Planned Parenthood’s “Safety Net” Is Actually Transparent Empire-Building\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tosh continues:<\/p>\n

The reality is there are already too few safety-net providers. Along the Central Coast, Planned Parenthood\u2019s health centers in San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Ventura and Thousand Oaks are an important part of a safety net that has taken decades to build.<\/p>\n

You cannot simply replace Planned Parenthood\u2019s critical role in this network.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is actually quite ridiculous.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0question is not how established Planned Parenthood is or how long it took Planned Parenthood to build its\u00a0empire. The\u00a0question is whether or not it deserves to\u00a0continue receiving\u00a0boatloads of\u00a0taxpayer dollars. Tosh\u00a0may be correct that replacing Planned Parenthood cannot be done “simply,” but since when is positive change easy? There will be challenges, but as Tosh knows, there are thousands of comprehensive women’s health care clinics (which outnumber Planned Parenthood locations by a wide margin<\/a>)\u00a0that could pick up the slack with the redirected federal funds, providing quality health care options \u2013\u00a0without pushing abortion sales on women<\/a> and constantly having to explain their way out of scandal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Is the 3% Myth Gone?<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a whole, there’s nothing unique about the op-ed. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a Planned Parenthood official writing in defense of her own business. However, there is one notable exception to this. Most are familiar with Planned Parenthood’s notoriously skewed <\/a>“3%” statistic \u2013\u00a0the claim that abortions account for only 3 percent of its\u00a0services. Here Tosh wanders from the typical Planned Parenthood script, claiming that abortion services\u00a0“represent less than 10 percent of services provided at Planned Parenthood.” While 3 percent is of course less than 10 percent, this is a unique choice of words. Is this a concession that abortions make up more than 3 percent? A reference to\u00a0Planned Parenthood locations in a\u00a0specific region?\u00a0A typo? Or just a very weird way of\u00a0admitting a slice of the truth?<\/p>\n